"...The F-35C was receiving fuel from an F/A-18F Super Hornet off the coast of Virginia on Aug. 23 when debris from an aerial-refueling basket was ingested into the Joint Strike Fighter jet's engine intake, said Lt. Travis Callaghan, a spokesman for Naval Air Forces.

The mishap led to engine damage for the F-35C, assigned to the California-based "Rough Riders" with Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 125. While rare, Callahan said parts of refueling baskets being sucked into an engine's intake are the most common form of non-bird foreign object or debris strikes in the Navy's tactical aviation fleet...."

sferrin wrote:Given this is the same guy that said the following, "Nevermind that the jet proved it couldn't safely operate in modern carrier cyclic ops.", based on a trashed basket (that has happened with every type of USN aircraft) I have to question his credibility.

ricnunes wrote:That pretty much nails it and at the same time pretty much nails "Bogey-spades" credibility as well...

I agree with both of you. I find it hard to believe that a current U.S. Navy pilot has such a polarized view on this matter.

I can believe it, they're just human. One of my friends is an enlisted in the navy and he tells me all sorts of hogwash like how the F-14 is somehow still secretly in service (according to him "nobody cares enough" to have caught on) and that LM is lying through their teeth on F-35 operational radius...

"ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN: The Navy dragged its feet for years after committing to buy the F-35C for carrier operations. They worried it would be too expensive to maintain. They worried the tailhook problems would persist. They worried it was too heavy. Let’s face it: the Navy leadership was just worried. After all, they had a fighter that works, the Super Hornet, already flying, thoroughly integrated into the complex and dangerous dance of the carrier air wing. Some were nearing the end of their operational life but the Navy committed to strengthening their wings and keeping them flying....

...the man in charge off integrating the F-35C into the Navy, Rear Adm. Dale Horan, did tell me that the Navy has been pleasantly surprised by their ability to maintain the Joint Strike Fighter’s stealth characteristics. While such maintenance remains complex, he told me, it’s very manageable and less onerous than some had feared...."

I was surprised, multiple times, about how little knowledge people who work in relevant field can have about the matters they should be knowledgable about. E.g. I have once been told by a legit T-72 commander that "T-80 tank has rifled barrel".

That guy might be a SH driver, know his jet inside out, and be a superb naval aviator - but his knowledge of F-35 might be limited to Mujamdar and Rogoway.

At some juncture he will go up against a F-35 in training and I dare say it will be an epiphany for him as it has been for every 4gen pilot before him. If he's lucky, he'll manage to switch to a F-35C squadron.

popcorn wrote:At some juncture he will go up against a F-35 in training and I dare say it will be an epiphany for him as it has been for every 4gen pilot before him. If he's lucky, he'll manage to switch to a F-35C squadron.

That assuming he's the "real deal" which honestly I have my doubts (but hey, I could be wrong thou).

In case he's the real deal I can only smile imagining the scene where he for the first time (or second, or third, or...) will have to perform a "mock combat" with his Super Hornet against the F-35C.Really, I used to be a Hornet/Super Hornet fan and to be honest I still am but hey trying to claim that the Super Hornet is superior to the F-35C makes me wonder how this guy (again if he's the real deal) managed to become a US Navy pilot...

A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.

jetnerd wrote:Like to see that the 35s can launch without AB. I wonder how useful a load they can bring aloft without it. AA loadout only? Or more?

You are a funny guy indeed. Would you like fries with that probably classified info? The VX-23 F-35C test pilots will have produced a launch bulletin for CVN / aircrew / deckcrew use. You could aks for it I guess. Good luck.

jetnerd wrote:Like to see that the 35s can launch without AB. I wonder how useful a load they can bring aloft without it. AA loadout only? Or more?

You are a funny guy indeed. Would you like fries with that probably classified info? The VX-23 F-35C test pilots will have produced a launch bulletin for CVN / aircrew / deckcrew use. You could aks for it I guess. Good luck.

I was speculating and of course don't want any answers that are classified. I LOVE that the internal weapons / typical stealthy config means that potential enemies have a hard time guessing what the 35 and 22's are up to even if they can directly observe them taking off/landing. I just remember how much everyone crowed publicly about how the F-14B / D's with the GE engines could take off without AB so it was nice to see it on the 35, although of course you can see none of the SH's are using it either in this video.

jetnerd wrote:Like to see that the 35s can launch without AB. I wonder how useful a load they can bring aloft without it. AA loadout only? Or more?

You are a funny guy indeed. Would you like fries with that probably classified info? The VX-23 F-35C test pilots will have produced a launch bulletin for CVN / aircrew / deckcrew use. You could aks for it I guess. Good luck.

I was speculating and of course don't want any answers that are classified. I LOVE that the internal weapons / typical stealthy config means that potential enemies have a hard time guessing what the 35 and 22's are up to even if they can directly observe them taking off/landing.

I agree 'not knowing' what is INSIDE is a worry for some. Assume the worst weapon scenario at all times.

I just wish / hope that our stealth jets had "rectractable" Luneberg lenses so that when the jets are taking off or landing (i.e. publicly within multiple ground observers' range or those dastardly Soviet or Chinese trawlers following our CBGs) that no one with equipment could get a cheap read of their radar signature. The F-35 / F-22 pilots could launch with them deployed then once out of most peoples' visual range, retract or eject them, then depart along their actual mission vector. (or maybe they do that already, I don't wanna know )

35_aoa wrote:Surprised to get back from 5 weeks at sea and not see a single thread about this.......last 2 weeks we just did F-35 "OT-1". First cyclic CVN F-35 ops in history. Yes, they howl a little more than our Rhinos (much like a Viper), and their formation lights are configured in a weird way so as to make them look like they have cat eyes on the PLAT cam. And yes, Top Gun 2 film crew was there as well, shooting all over the place. Maybe my 15 mins in fame is yet to come.....think I bagged a (settle)/AR OK 2 wire the sunset they were filming at the same time I was flying.

How many F-35C were on the ship? Does anybody know their BuNos? Especially of the one that got damaged.

jetnerd wrote:I just wish / hope that our stealth jets had "rectractable" Luneberg lenses so that when the jets are taking off or landing (i.e. publicly within multiple ground observers' range or those dastardly Soviet or Chinese trawlers following our CBGs) that no one with equipment could get a cheap read of their radar signature. The F-35 / F-22 pilots could launch with them deployed then once out of most peoples' visual range, retract or eject them, then depart along their actual mission vector. (or maybe they do that already, I don't wanna know )

Well the F-35 already have something very similar to that. It's called "open the weapons bay doors".

A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.